G.R. No. L-59872 August 24, 1990
MAURO G. MERIS, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondents.

FACTS

Mauro G. Meris served as a government employee from 1958 until his retirement in 1979 at age sixty-three. Upon retirement, he received a gratuity and a lifetime monthly pension from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Due to a diagnosed ailment of hypertensive cardiovascular disease with myocardial infarction, the GSIS had previously awarded him temporary total disability benefits for a brief period in 1978 and permanent partial disability benefits from July 1979 to January 1980.
Dissatisfied with the extent of the compensation awarded, Meris filed a plea with the GSIS. He sought, first, the conversion of his disability status from permanent partial to permanent total, which would entitle him to higher benefits, and second, additional compensation for a cataract condition. The GSIS denied both claims. This denial was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC).

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Employees’ Compensation Commission committed a reversible error in affirming the GSIS’s denial of Meris’s claims for the conversion of his disability benefits and for additional compensation for cataract.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the ECC. The Court’s ruling rests on the principle of finality of factual findings by administrative agencies and the absence of a compelling reason to overturn them. Both the GSIS and the ECC had meticulously evaluated all evidence presented by Meris, including medical opinions from his attending physician. They cross-referenced this evidence with established medical authorities.
Based on this evaluation, the agencies concluded as matters of fact that: (1) Meris’s cardiovascular disability was correctly classified as permanent partial, not permanent total; and (2) his senile cataract was not compensable, as its primary predisposing factor was old age and it was not shown to be directly caused by or aggravated by the nature of his work duties. The Supreme Court emphasized that these conclusions are factual determinations. Under settled jurisprudence, factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the ECC, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and finality and are not subject to review by the Court. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to cite any new, cogent evidence or persuasive argument that would warrant a reversal of these factual conclusions. Thus, the petition was denied for lack of merit.